The Holy Land: what an unholy mess. In his pronouncement, Ed Miliband was as effective as I can remember his being (not that this is saying much). He sounded sincere and I am sure that he was. So; two and a half cheers? No. No cheers at all. The Foreign Secretary's speech was insufficiently grounded in reality and he subsequently made matters worse.
Leaving aside the need to placate Labour MPs, especially those with large numbers of Muslim constituents, Mr Miliband should be judged by three criteria. Will these sanctions discourage further settlements? Will they lead to a reduction in violence? Another no, is the answer. In neither case is there any reason to believe that they will be successful. We then come to the third point, the over-riding question. Will they do anything to assist progress towards a two-state solution? The answer, alas, is a further and resounding no.
It is indeed possible that Ed Miliband's measures will make things worse. There are plenty of Israelis who dislike and distrust Benjamin Netanyahu. Down the years, there has been a powerful peace movement in Israel, whose supporters fear that their country risks becoming a pariah state. Mr Netanyahu is facing an imminent election and fighting to stay in office. Ed Miliband would presumably like him to lose. Well, I have talked to people whose assessment I trust. They believe that the foreign interventions will help Netanyahu, not hinder him. A lot of Israelis do not trust foreigners, except probably Americans. International critics may not cost Netanyahu many votes. Any losses could be compensated for by net gains.
There is a further point against Miliband minor and on it, there are no excuses. He was asked whether the Israelis were committing genocide. In response, he waffled. It would be charitable to describe that reply as feeble-minded. The charge of genocide against Israel is an offence against truth, history, language and morality. One would have thought that only an international lawyer could be guilty of such a bêtise.
The Israelis and all Jews everywhere know about genocide. I would guess that few if any days go past without any Jew over the age of four spending time dwelling on that subject. One might call it genocide trauma. When they themselves are accused of genocide, Jews instantly understand what is happening. Their enemies are trying to put them on all fours with the Nazis. These enemies will no doubt be chanting 'from the river to the sea' which is indeed a genocidal ambition. We can believe that Ed Miliband wants peace and would like to reassure Israelis. How does he think that all this will help?
Some Israelis have committed crimes. But let us keep a sense of proportion. The Jewish settlers on the West Bank have killed fewer people than the IRA did over the years in Fermanagh. We must also remember the fate of the Oslo accords and the Abraham accords. The Palestinians sabotaged the first: Hamas, the second. In each case, there were mighty problems still to solve. Yet better a glimmer of peace than no progress at all.
There is a further factor. Military historians have coined a phrase which is ugly but useful: species pseudo-differentiation. It is easier to kill your foes if you try to pretend that they are a different and inferior species. Unflattering nick-names help; Krauts, Frogs, Gooks et al.
There has been a lot of species pseudo-differentiation in Israel/Palestine. A particularly virulent outbreak took place around the time that Palestinians were sending children with explosive waistcoats to bomb bus queues in Tel Aviv. Israelis were horrified, and who can blame them? The cry went up: 'What sort of animals are these who sacrifice their children to murder our children?' There was a similar explosion of rage and anguish after the October 7th atrocity.
Which brings us to the need to move to the question of questions. How do we create a two-state solution? Whenever the international bien-pensantry gather to discuss the Middle East - Ed Miliband counts as one of them - there is always agreement on one point: the two states. But how do we get there? At times one feels that they might as well discuss the existence of Santa Claus or the naked emperor's wardrobe.
Chuntering on with endless pieties about the two states is western diplomacy's equivalent of the emperor's no clothes. We could happily indulge in mockery, except for one consideration. The failure of the two-state solution is not a joke. It is a tragedy.
I would assume that Premier Netanyahu does have an answer, not very deep in his id, and the superego is hardly in firm control. He would say that there is no need for another Palestinian state. One already exists, called Jordan. We merely need to persuade the Palestinians in the West Bank to move there.
Yet those - most of us surely - who would regard the destruction of Jordan as utterly repugnant have to do more than recoil in horror. There are 700,000 Jewish settlers on the West Bank, and counting. Try to discourage new settlements by all means but anyone who thinks that a two-state solution can be constructed out of the present demographics must have two blind eyes and half a brain. It is a mere exercise in self-deception.
There was a moment when tragedy might have been averted. After the 1967 war and Israel's six-day triumph, there could have been an opportunity for Western statesmanship. Obviously, the Israelis would keep the Old City and some land around Jerusalem. But use the rest of the West Bank to establish a Palestinian state. The Jordanians did not want it back. Gaza could be sorted out with fast rail links.
There was a problem. Generals tend to plan for the previous war and Israelis are not necessarily an exception. Pre-1967 Israel was wasp-waisted. At its narrowest it was only 12 miles across. So there were anxieties about a tank-thrust from the West Bank, cutting the country in two. Although this was out-of-date thinking it helped to promote drift. Meanwhile, settlers arrived. Their numbers grew. And grew. Facts on the ground have been altered.
As the wisest man in the Middle East, Prince Hassan of Jordan, often reminds the inhabitants, 'We live in a dangerous neighbourhood.' Is there any form of bomb-disposal to reduce those dangers?
I just wish I could see one.